Holding

Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 applies, rendering the widow a bhumidhar with absolute title, and the Deputy Director's revision order is invalid for re‑appraising facts.

Summary

The widow Smt. Phoola was allotted land in 1932 as part of a family compromise for her maintenance and her name was entered in revenue records. She later sold the land in 1956 to the respondents, but other members of the Hindu Undivided Family challenged the sale, claiming she only held a limited interest under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) upheld her right to transfer, but the Deputy Director of Consolidation, exercising revision power, set aside those orders. The High Court, however, held that Section 18 of the Act applied, making her a bhumidhar with absolute title, and restored the earlier orders. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court, stating that Section 18, not Section 11, governed the case and that the Deputy Director could not re‑appreciate facts under his revision power, thus dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the widow's interest in the land is governed by Section 11 (limited right in lieu of maintenance) or Section 18 (right of bhumidhar) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation, while exercising statutory revision, could re‑appreciate evidence and set aside the findings of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer.
Whether the widow, having received the land by compromise, became a bhumidhar entitled to transfer the land.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Land reformsWidow's rightsBhumidharSection 18Section 11Consolidation of holdingsStatutory revisionMaintenanceHindu Undivided Family

Judgment

RAM AVTAR AND ORS. A
v.
~-- RAM DHANI AND ORS ..

SEPTEMBER 26, 1996

'O
[N.P. SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] B

U.P. Zamindar Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950:

S.18-Hindu Undivided Family-Widow given land for maintenance
u11der a compromise in 1932--Mutatio11 effected-Widow executing a sa~
deed on 6.4.1956-Sale of land challenged by other members of the family ·
c
011 the ground that she had a limited illterest in the lands-Meanw/(il~ ·
consolidation proceedings startetf--Co11solidatio11 Officer and Settlement Of-,
fleer (Co11solidation) upheld widow's right to transfer the land-Deputy Direc-
tor of Consolidation in revision set aside the orders-High Court in writ
petition held that widow had acquired absolute right under s.18 of the D
Act-Appellants contending that s.11 and not s.18 would apply in the
case-Held widow got the land on the basis of the compromise in 1932 and
as such the High Court rightly held that by virtue of s.18 she became

- bhumidhar of the land.

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953:
E

S.48 Revision-Held, howsoever wide the power under statutory revision
may be in contrast to s.115 CPC, still while exercising the power the authority
concemed cannot act as a court of appeal so as to reappreciate the evidence
for recording findings 011 question offacts-Order of Deputy Director of F
Consolidation was liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

Ramji Dixit and Anr. v. Bhrigunath and Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 767, relied
on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1803 of G
1982.
- . From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.82 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 7828 of 1973.

S.B. Sanyal, G.G. Upadhyay and R.D. Upadhyay for the Appellants. H
45
, i
\
46 \ SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1996)SUPP. 7S.C.R.
A J.P. Goyal, R.P. Goyal and K:K: Gupta for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

One Sehti, the husband· of Smt. Phoola died in a state of jointness in
B the year 1911. The said Smt. Phoola continued to be the member of the
joint family along with other brothers of her husband. A dispute arose in
the family and a compromise was entered into on February 8, 1932 in "'.hich
it was agreed that Smt. Phoola who was the widow in the family should be
given some lands for maintenance. Her name was also mutated in revenue
records..
c
The said Phoola executed sale deeds in favour of the respondents on
April 6, 1956 in respect of the lands in question. She died in the year 1966.
Thereafter the appellants filed a suit for declaration that Smt. Phoola
having only a limited interest in the said property could not have trans-
D ferred th_e same in favour of the .respondents. That suit abated in view of
issuance cif the notification under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act. Thereafter, the same question as to whether the transfer
could have been made or not by Smt. Phoola in favour of the respondents
was raised before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer
E upheld the right of Smt. Phoola to transfer the lands in question. The
appeal filed on behalf of the appellants before the Settlement Officer
(Consolidation) was. also dismissed with the same finding. However, on
revision application being filed on behalf of the appellants; the Deputy
Director, consolidation set aside the orders passed by the Consolidation
Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Thereafter, a writ
F petition was filed on behalf of the respondents before the High Court. A
learned Judge of the High Court after taking into consideration the
provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(hereinafter to be referred to as the Land Reforms Act) and the provisions
of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafte~ to be referred to as the Succes-
G sion Act) came to the conclusion that even before coming into force of the
provisions of the Succession Act Smt. Phoola had acquired absolute right
under Section 18 of the Land Reforms Act on the basis of which she could
have conveyed valid title to the respondents. The High Court also
proceeded to consider the effect of the provisions of the Succession Act in •
H connection with the arguments raised before the High Court that the lands
RAM AVfAR v. RAM DHANI 47
which had been given to Smt. Phoola for maintenance, were in lieu of a A
pre-existing right.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants took the stand that in
the present case, Section 11 of the Land Reforms Act shall be attracted
and not Section 18. Section 11 and relevant part of the Section 18 of the
Land Reforms Act are as follows: B

"Section 11. Sir or khudkasht allotted in lieu of maintenance
allowance - Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10,
where sir or khudkasht has been allotted by the sir or khudkasht
holder thereof to a person in lieu of maintenance allowance, such C
person shall be deemed to be the asami thereof entitled to hold
the land for so long as the right of maintenance allowance subsists.

Section 18. Settlement of certain lands with intennediaries of
cultivators as Bhwnidhar - (1) Subject to the provisions of Sections
10, 15, 16 and 17 all lands - D
(a) in possession of or held or deemed to be held by an
intermediary as sir, khudkasht or an intermediary's grove.

(b) held as a grove by, or in the personal cultivation of a
permanent lessee in Avadh, E
(c) held by a fixed-rate tenant or a rent-free grantee as such,
-.., or

(d) held as such by -
F
(i) an occupancy tenant,

(ii) a hereditary tenant,

(iii) a tenant or Patta Dawami or Istamrari referred to in
Section 17, G
possessing the right to transfer the holding by sale,

(e) held by a grove holder,

on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall be H
---------------~----------,----------------

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A deemed to be settled by the State Government with such inter-
mediary, lessee, tenant, grantee or grove-holder, as the case may
·be, who shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to
take or retain possession as a bhumidhar thereof•

•
B
On a plain reading of Section 18(1) it appears that all lands in
possession of an intermediary as sir or khudkasht on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the State
Government with such intermediary. The High Court was of opinion that
C as Smt. Phoola was in possession of the lands in question on the date
immediately preceding the date of vesting, it shall be deemed to have been
settled by the State Government with her in view of Section 18(1) and she
had right to retain the same as Bhumidhar thereof.

On behalf of the appellants it was pointed out that Smt. Phoola shall
D not be deemed to be an intermediary so as to avail the benefit of Section
18(1). The Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation)
and the High Court have proceeded on the assumption that after the
compromise in the year 1932 Smt. Phoola came in possession of the lands
which are the subject matter in dispute, in lieu of maintenance on the basis
E of compromise in the family. The family was joint. There is no finding that
there was any partition at any stage later. As such, it shall be deemed that ·
Smt. Phoola continued to be a member of the joint family which was
admittedly an intermediary within the meaning of provisions of Land
Reforms Act. In this background, according to us Section 18(1) was fully
attracted and on the basis thereof it shall be deemed that the land which
F she was holding as sir or khudkasht was settled by the State Government
with her and she was entitled to retain possession as Bhumidhar thereof.

This Court in the case of Ramji Dirit & Anr. v. Bhrigunath & Ors.
repo~ted in (1968] 2 SCR 767 has considered the scope of the provisions
of the Land Reforms Act in connection 'With a widow holding a life estate
G and has held that in view of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act she
will deemed to be Bhumidhar. Learned Counsel tried to distingnish the
judgment by saying that in that case, the land had devolved on the widow
from her husband directly and not on the basis of any compromise.
According to us, the ratio of that judgment canoot be distinguished on this •
H ground. •
RAM AVfAR v. RAM DHANI 49
The High Court ha~ rightly rejected the stand of the appellants that A
' by way of maintenance it will be covered by
as Smt. Phoola got the lands
Section 11 of the Act and after vesting she will be deemed to be the Asarni
and not Bhumidhar. It appears Section 11 shall be applicable where the
holder of sir or khudkasht lands allots such lands to a person in lieu of
maintenance allowance. In the present case, Smt. Phoola got the lands on
B
the basis of a compromise entered into in the year 1932 and she was in
possession thereof.

We are surprised as to how the Deputy Director while exercising the
revisional power entered into all questions of fact and came to the con-
clusion on pure conjecture that the appellants before this Court shall be C·
deemed to be in possession of the lands since 1932. This Court has
repeatedly pointed out that howsoever wide the power under statutory
revision may be in contrast to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
still while exercising that power the authority concerned cannot act as court
of appeal so as to reappreciate the evidence on record for recording
findings on questions of fact. According to us, the High Court should have D
set aside the order of the Deputy Director, on this ground alone and should
have restored the order of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement
Officer (Consolidation). We are in agreement with the conclusions arrived
at by the High Court. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed. No
costs. E
R.P. Appeal dismissed.